Oak  Street 
UNCLASSIFIED 


BULLLETIN  of  the 
Unntersttg  (Earnlitta 


fiUis 


1  nf  Slate 


ANNOUNCEMENT  1910-11. 

AND 

ADDRESS  OF  HON.  R.  WITHERS  MEMMINGER 


ISSUED  QUARTERLY 
BY  THE  UNIVERSITY 

= 

No.  22, 

‘Part  2. 

July,  1910. 


COLUMBIA.  S.C. 
Second  -  Class  Mail  Matter 


The  Tress  of  THE 
R.  L.  BRYAN 
COMPANY.  Col um 
hi  a,  South  Carolina 


School  of  Law 


John  P.  Thomas,  Jr.,  Dean. 

Prof.  J.  Nelson  Frierson.  Prof.  E.  Marion  Rucker. 

Bachelor  or  Laws — Two  Years'  Course. 


eirst  year. 

First  T erm. 

Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Law . Processor  Thomas. 

Text-book :  Woodruff’s  Introduction,  supplemented  by  a 
course  of  lectures  upon  the  nature,  classification  and  sources  of 
the  law. 

Domestic  Relations  and  Law  of  Persons.  .Professor  Rucker. 

Text-books:  Kent’s  Short  Chapters,  with  selected  cases; 
Woodruff’s  Cases  on  Domestic  Relations  and  the  Law  of  Per¬ 
sons. 

Contracts . Proeessor  Thomas. 

Text-books:  Clark  on  Contracts;  Hopkins’  Cases  on  Con¬ 

tracts. 

Agency  (including  Master  and  Servant)  .Proeessor  Frierson. 
Text-book :  Huffcut’s  Cases  on  Agency. 

Partnership . Proeessor  Rucker. 

Text-book :  Burdick’s  Cases  on  Partnership. 

Crimes  and  Criminal  Procedure . Proeessor  Rucker. 

Text-books :  Mikell’s  Cases  on  Criminal  Law ;  Beale’s  Crim¬ 
inal  Pleading  and  Practice,  with  selected  cases. 

Second  Term. 

Personal  Property . Proeessor  Rucker. 

Text-book:  Kent’s  Short  Chapters,  with  selected  cases. 

Bailments  and  Carriers . Proeessor  Frierson. 

Text-book:  Goddard’s  Cases  on  Bailments  and  Carriers. 


Professor  Rucker. 


Torts . 

Text-book :  Chases’s  Cases  on  Torts. 

Wills  and  Administration . .  Professor  Thomas. 

Text-book:  (to  be  announced;). 

Partnership . Professor  Rucker. 

Text-book:  Burdick’s  Cases  on  Partnership. 

Bills  and  Notes . Professor  Thomas. 

Text-book :  Cases  on  Bills  and  Notes. 

Bankruptcy . Professor  Frierson. 

No  text-book.  The  Bankruptcy  Act  studied  and  selected 
cases  discussed. 

Insurance . . Professor  Thomas. 

Text-book:  Wambaugh’s  Cases  on  Insurance. 

Sales . . . Professor  Rucker. 

Text-book:  Burdick’s  Cases  on  Sales. 

second  year. 

First  Term. 

Evidence . Professor  Rucker. 

Text-books:  Greenleaf  on  Evidence;  Wigmore’s  Cases  on 
Evidence. 

Corporations  (private)  . Professor  Frierson. 

Text-book:  Keener's  Cases  on  Corporations. 

Real  Property . Professor  Thomas. 

Text-book:  Kirchey’s  Readings  in  the  Law  of  Real  Prop¬ 
erty. 

Conflict  of  Laws . Professor  Frierson. 

Text-book :  Beale’s  Cases  on  Conflict  of  Laws. 

Suretyship  and  Mortgages . Professor  Thomas. 

Text-books :  Ames’  Cases  on  Suretyship ;  Kirchwey’s  Cases 
on  Mortgages. 

Constitutional  Law . Professor  Rucker. 

Text-book:  McClain’s  Cases  on  Constitutional  Law. 


5 


Second  Term. 

Code  Pleading  and  Practice . Professor  Thomas. 

Text-books :  Abbott’s  Select  Cases ;  Code  of  Civil  Procedure, 
with  selected  cases. 

Corporations  (private) . Professor  Frierson. 

Text-book :  Keener’s  Cases  on  Corporations. 

Real  Property,  including  Conveyancing  and  Abstracting  of 

Titles . Professor  Thomas. 

Text-books :  Finch’s  Cases  on  the  Law  of  Property  in  Land, 
(2d.  Ed.)  Practical  instruction  in  conveyancing  and.  abstract¬ 
ing  titles. 

Evidence . Professor  Rucker. 

Text-books:  Greenleaf  on  Evidence;  Wigmore’s  Cases  on 
Evidence. 

Municipal  Corporations . Professor  Frierson. 

Text-book:  Smith’s  Cases  on  Municipal  Corporations. 

Equity  Jurisprudence . Professor  Frierson. 

Text-book:  (to  be  announced). 

Conflict  of  Laws . Professor  Frierson. 

Text-book :  Beale’s  Cases  on  Conflict  of  Laws. 

Constitutional  Law . Professor  Rucker. 

Text-book:  McClain’s  Cases  on  Constitutional  Law. 

Moot  Courts. 

The  Moot  Courts  shall  be,  as  they  have  heretofore  always 
been,  within  and  constitute  a  part  of  the  voluntary  “Law  Asso¬ 
ciation  of  the  University,”  which  has  existed  and  been  con¬ 
ducted  successfully  for  many  years,  and  these  Courts  shall  be 
held  by  the  Professors  of  Municipal  Law,  who'  shall  prepare 
moot  cases  for  argument,  and  in  all  other  respects  they  shall 
regulate  the  holding  of  such  Courts  under  such  rules  as  they 
may  from  time  to  time  deem  necessary  to  establish,  for  the 
better  administration  and  conduct  of  said  Moot  Courts. 


6 


Special  Lectures. 

In  addition  to  the  regular  instruction  and  lectures  by  the 
Professors  of  Law  of  the  University  of  South  Carolina,  the 
Trustees  and  Faculty  are  pleased  to  be  able  to  announce  for  the 
coming  session  a  series  of  lectures  to  be  contributed  by  some  of 
the  leading  members  of  the  Bench  and  Bar  of  the  State. 

Value  of  a  Law  School  Training. 

The  great  value  of  the  training  afforded  by  schools  of  law 
has  been  too  thoroughly  demonstrated  to  render  necessary  any 
arguments  in  their  support.  The  day  of  preparation  for  the 
bar  by  solitary  study  in  a  lawyer’s  office  has  practically  passed. 
Every  one  familiar  with  the  working  of  the  law  school  must 
have  been  impressed  with  the  increased  interest  and  zeal  that 
result  from  the  mere  association  of  young  men  who  have  come 
together  for  the  common  purpose  of  studying  law.  The  daily 
discussions  of  questions  of  law,  not  only  with  professors,  but 
also  with  each  other,  beget  an  enthusiasm  for  the  law  which, 
in  some  instances,  could  never  have  been  acquired  otherwise. 

The  Committee  on  Legal  Education  and  Admission  to  the 
Bar  in  a  report  which  was  adopted  by  the  American  Bar  Asso¬ 
ciation,  at  its  annual  meeting  in  August,  1908,  says:  “The 
knowledge  which  the  student  acquires  in  an  office  when  con¬ 
trasted  with  that  which  he  obtains  in  the  school  is  fragmentary 
in  the  extreme,  and  the  system  of  studying  in  an  office  when 
contrasted  with  the  system  of  law  school  instruction  is  wasteful 
both  of  time  and  labor.  Years  ago  Chief  Justice  Waite  wrote : 
‘The  time  has  gone  by  when  an  eminent  lawyer,  in  full  prac¬ 
tice,  can  take  a  class  of  students  into  his  office  and  become  their 
teacher.  Once  that  was  practicable,  but  it  is  not  now.  The 
consequence  is  that  law  schools  are  now  a  necessity.’  ” 

Law  as  a  Cultural  Study  and  a  Training  for  Citizenship. 

A  law  school,  however,  should  be  patronized  not  alone  by 
those  intending  to  practice  law.  There  is  hardly  a  calling  in 
life  for  which  one  would  not  be  better  prepared  by  having  taken 
a  course  in  law.  Almost  every  one  who  has  made  an  earnest 


7 


study  of  the  law  will  agree  with  Burke  that  it  is  a  “science 
which  does  more  to  quicken  and  invigorate  the  understanding 
than  all  other  kinds  of  human  learning  put  together.”  The 
hope  is  indulged,  therefore,  that  there  may  be  an  increasingly 
large  number  of  young  men  to  take  law  as  a  part  of  their  course 
for  a  liberal  education. 

The  Law  Student’s  Opportunities  in  Columbia. 

Columbia,  as  the  capital  of  the  State,  presents  many  advan¬ 
tages  for  the  law  student.  The  sessions  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  State,  of  the  State  Circuit  courts,  and  of  the  Federal 
courts,  give  him  frequent  opportunity  to  hear  arguments  by  the 
leading  lawyers  of  the  State,  and  to  witness  the  practical  admin¬ 
istration  of  the  principles  of  the  law.  In  prosecuting  his  studies 
he  will  also  find  that  having  access  to  the  law,  library  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  as  well  as  to  the  University  library,  will  be 
of  the  greatest  value  to  him. 

A  dmission  R  equiremen  ts. 

Every  applicant  for  Law  must  be  at  least  nineteen  years  old, 
and  must  present  satisfactory  proof,  by  written  examination  or 
otherwise,  that  he  has  had  a  preliminary  general  education 
equivalent  to  that  of  a  graduate  of  a  high  school  of  this  State. 

Any  person  who  has  had  the  required  preliminary  education, 
and  who  has  been  in  regular  attendance  at  another  law  school 
for  one  year,  or  who  has  read  law  in  the  office  or  under  the 
direction  of  a  member  of  the  Bar  of  this  State  for  one  year, 
may  be  admitted  to  the  work  of  the  second  year  upon  passing 
satisfactory  examination  in  the  studies  of  the  first  year :  Pro¬ 
vided,  Such  applicant  for  advanced  standing  shall  present  him¬ 
self  for  such  examination  within  thirty  days  after  the  beginning 
of  the  session.  Such  examination  may  be  oral,  or  written,  or 
partly  oral  and  partly  written,  as  the  examiner  may  direct. 

Applicants  seeking  advanced  standing  in  the  first  year’s  work 
may  be  admitted  at  any  time,  by  permission  of  the  Faculty, 
upon  standing  a  satisfactory  examination  on  the  subjects  gone 
over  by  the  class  up  to  that  date. 


8 


At  the  time  of  receiving  the  degree  of  Bachelor  of  Laws  the 
candidate  must  have  attained  the  age  of  twenty-one  years, 
unless  he  shall  come  to  that  age  between  the  date  of  such  degree 
and  the  next  sitting  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State,  at  which 
he  may  be  sworn  in  as  an  attorney  at  law  in  South  Carolina. 

An  increasingly  large  majority  of  the  law  schools  of  the 
United  States  have  found  it  necessary  to  lengthen  the  course 
of  study  from  two  to  three  years,  and  it  is  the  hope  of  the 
Faculty  of  the  University  that,  in  the  course  of  a  year  or  two, 
conditions  will  warrant  the  extension  of  the  course  in  law  to 
three  years,  following  the  general  trend  of  legal  education  in 
the  country  at  large. 

Pope  Medal. 

During  tl\e  session  1908-1909,  a  gold  medal  was  presented 
to  the  University  by  Mrs.  S.  Reed  Stoney,  in  memory  of  her 
father,  the  late  lamented  Dean  of  the  Law  School,  Joseph 
Daniel  Pope,  deceased.  This  medal  is  annually  “to  be  competed 
for  by  the  Senior  Law  Class  for  the  best  essay  bearing  upon 
any  subject  connected  with  Equity.”  By  the  terms  of  the  gift, 
the  winner’s  name  will  be  engraved  upon  the  medal  and  he 
will  be  entitled  to  wear  it  until  the  following  year. 

Expenses. 

The  session  is  divided  into  two  terms.  At  the  beginning  of 
each  term  each  student  is  required  to  pay  a  term  fee  of  $9,  and 
a  tuition  fee  of  $20.  All  students  rooming  on  the  campus  must 
pay  a  room  fee  of  $4  a  term,  which  is  non-returnable.  For  this 
sum  electric  lights,  not  including  lamps,  and  cleaning  of  the 
rooms  are  provided. 

All  students  are  required  to  deposit  with  the  Treasurer  at 
the  beginning  of  the  first  term  a  breakage  fee  of  $3.  This  is 
returnable,  at  the  end  of  the  session,  less  the  amount  deducted 
for  breakage  and  damage  to  university  property. 

No  student  will  be  permitted  to  enter  upon  his  studies  until 
the  term  fee  is  paid  at  the  beginning  of  each  ierm;  and  under 
no  circumstances  is  any  part  of  this  fee  ever  refunded. 


9 


Tuition  fees  also  are  required  at  the  beginning  of  each  term, 
and  must  then  be  settled,  or  satisfactory  arrangements  made 
with  the  President  for  their  early  payment. 

The  charge  for  a  Diploma  is  three  dollars. 

The  expenses  of  living  at  the  University  have  been  so 
reduced  that  the  advantages  here  offered  are  within  the  reach 
of  all.  Good  board  is  furnished  at  from  $10  to  $12  a  month. 
This  is  the  principal  item  of  expense.  There  is  no  charge  for 
incidental  expenses  or  use  of  library. 

Twenty-five  dollars  will  cover  the  cost  of  fuel  and  lights, 
washing  and  attendance. 

The  total  necessary  expenses,  exclusive  of  traveling  and 
clothing,  are  about  $208. 

As  Columbia  is  near  the  center  of  the  State,  with  railways 
diverging  from  it  in  every  direction,  the  cost  of  traveling  is 
reduced  to  a  minimum. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  customs  and  habits  prevailing  in  and 
around  the  University  that  encourages  extravagance  or  useless 
expenditure  of  money. 

Letters  of  inquiry  on  any  point  will  be  welcomed  and 
promptly  answered.  Address, 

University  oe  South  Carolina, 
Columbia,  S.  C. 


ADDRESS  OF  HON.  R.  WITHERS  MEMMINGER 


To  the  Graduating  Law  Class  of  the  University  of  South  Carolina,  in  the 
Columbia  Theatre,  June  7,  1910.* 

Mr.  President,  Gentlemen  of  the  Law  Class,  Ladies  and  Gen¬ 
tlemen  : 

My  address  tonight  is  to  be  as  from  a  practical  worker  in  the 
field  of  the  administration  of  law  in  South  Carolina,  to  those 
who  are  about  to  enter  and  become  themselves  gleaners  in  that 
field. 

There  may  be  some  of  those  who  will  reap  the  harvest  with¬ 
out  coming  much  in  contact  with  trials  by  jury;  but  most,  if 
not  all,  will  find  that  the  trial  of  causes  before  juries  will  be  the 
earliest  opportunity  a  lawyer  has  for  getting  known  and  making 
reputation,  from  which  other  business  follows. 

Consequently  it  has  occurred  to  me  as  appropriate,  that  I 
select  as  my  topic,  in  the  main,  tonight,  something  of  the  Sys¬ 
tem  of  Trial  by  Jury;  with  comments  upon  some  of  its  unique 
features,  and  some  suggestions  as  to  what  alterations  might 
apparently  well  be  made  to  obtain  in  the  system  as  we  have  it 
now,  together  with  some  incidents  from  my  own  experiences  as 
a  trial  judge,  all  of  which  I  shall  do  without  impinging  upon  the 
time  within  which  you  will  have  the  pleasure  of  hearing  from 
the  distinguished  gentleman  who  is  to  address  the  Academic 
Graduates  here  tonight,  upon  some  more  general  and,  no  doubt, 
interesting  theme. 

TRIAL  BY  JURY. 

Roughly  stated,  the  system  of  trial  by  jury  has  been  in  opera¬ 
tion  from  its  appearance  in  England,  in  substantially  its  present 
form,  for  nearly  six  hundred  years. 

Originally  jurors  were  witnesses  to  the  transaction  at  issue, 
or  persons  who  would  swear  as  witnesses  to  their  belief  in  the 
guilt  or  innocence  of  the  accused ;  and  there  was  no  such  thing 

*The  address  to  the  Academic  Class  was  delivered  on  the  same  occasion 
by  Mr.  John  Skelton  Williams,  of  Richmond,  Va. 


11 


as  a  grand  jury  ;  but  gradually,  it  seems,  owing  apparently  to 
the  natural  unwillingness  of  persons  to  come  forward  and  make 
accusations  of  crime,  or  perhaps  to  the  desire  of  the  people  that 
no  person  be  brought  to  trial  at  the  instance  of  the  govern- 

t 

ment,  without  the  intervention  of  the  grand  jury  as  represen¬ 
tatives  of  the  people,  it  was  found  expedient  to  have  a  body 
of  sworn  accusers,  and  the  grand  jury,  as  such,  became  fixed 
in  the  English  law  (although  its  precise  date  and  origin  is  diffi¬ 
cult  to  discover),  and  the  petit  or  trial  jury  became,  as  they 
are  now,  not  witnesses,  but  men  drawn  at  large  from  the 
neighborhood,  who  hear  the  testimony  of  witnesses  and  decide 
the  issues  of  fact. 

The  most  unique  and  characteristic  features  of  the  system 
of  trial  by  jury  may  well  be  said  to  be:  The  Number  Twelve, 
necessary  to  constitute  a  jury;  The  Rule  of  Unanimity ,  where¬ 
in  under  the  verdict  must  be  by  all  the  twelve  instead  of  a  major¬ 
ity  or  other  numerical  proportion  ;  The  Exemptions  from  Jury 
'  Service ;  and  the  Right  of  Peremptory  Challege. 

As  to  why  twelve  was  the  number  selected  no  sound  theory 
has  ever  been  evolved.  One  learned  author  states  that  this 
number  was  not  confined  to  England  nor  in  England  nor  else¬ 
where,  to  judicial  institutions.  Another  attributes  it  to  twelve 
being  the  favorite  number  among  the  Scandinavian  nations  for 
constituting  a  court.  Another  that  it  was  in  analogy  to  the  fact 
that  the  Prophets  were  twelve  to  foretell  the  truth;  the  Apos¬ 
tles,  twelve  to  preach  the  truth ;  the  Discoverers,  twelve  sent  to 
Canaan  to  seek  and  report  the  truth;  and  the  Stones,  twelve, 
that  the  heavenly  Jerusalem  is  built  upon. 

Upon  the  whole,  says  another  writer,  “no  very  logical  reason 
can  perhaps  be  found  for  fixing  the  number  of  the  jury  at 
twelve.  It  was  due  probably  to  some  degree  of  fanciful  super¬ 
stition  or  customary  deference  to  or  faith  in  that  number; 
though  it  may  well  be  considered  that  the  number  twelve 
affords  a  fair  test  in  general  of  the  average  sense)  intelligence, 
and  judgment  of  a  community.  At  all  events  it  is  unreasonable 
to  believe  that  the  steady  adhesion,  for  over  five  centuries,  to 


that  number  has  not  rested  on  a  conviction  that  it  affords  at 
least  as  strong  a  guarantee  as  any  other  number  could,  of  such 
results  as  the  jury  was  at  first  fashioned,  and  is  still  intended 
to  secure  in  the  administration  of  law.” 

The  next  curious  and  unique  feature  of  the  system  of  trial 
by  jury,  and  the  one  of  all  others  which  perhaps  has  excited 
more  discussion  and  adverse  criticism  than  any  other,  is  the 
Rule  of  Unanimity. 

As  one  author  writes  of  this  rule:  “It  is  at  once  said  that 
the  rule  is  exceptional  in  respect  to  judicial  as  well  as  other 
affairs,  and  that  the  rule  of  the  majority  is  the  only  rule  in 
keeping  with  the  genius  of  our  government.  All  officers,  judi¬ 
cial  as  well  as  ministerial,  are  elected  by  majorities,  and  our 
constitutions  and  laws  are  all  finally  interpreted  by  a  majority 
of  the  judges  of  our  highest  courts;  and  yet  it  requires  the 
unanimous  verdict  of  twelve  jurors  to  convict  a  thief  or  acquit 
an  innocent  man.” 

The  rule  of  unanimity  has  been  condemned  universally  by 
many  high  authorities,  and  apparently  the  weight  of  opinion  is 
that  it  should  not  prevail,  except  in  criminal  cases  exclusively. 
Says  one  writer  (Starkie)  :  “The  rule  has  descended  to  us  in 
a  state  of  unmitigated  barbarism.”  Says  another  (Christian, 
the  commentator  of  Blackstone)  :  “The  unanimity  of  twelve 
men,  so  repugnant  to  all  experience  of  human  conduct  and 
understanding,  could  hardly  in  any  age,  have  been  introduced 
into  practice  by  a  deliberate  act  of  the  Legislature,  and  it 
remains  to  be  seen  whether  the  Legislature  will  much  longer 
tolerate  such  an  anomaly.” 

In  our  own  State,  one  of  our  judges  (the  late  lamented  Judge 
Hudson),  in  an  able  charge  to  a  grand  jury,  declared  strongly 
against  this  rule,  and  for  a  majority  or  two- thirds  verdict. 
Among  many  other  cogent  reasons  in  support  of  his  opinion, 
he  urged  that :  “The  rule  of  unanimity  renders  consultation  in 
the  jury  room  so  tedious,  protracted,  onerous,  and  disagreeable, 
that  good  and  true,  intelligent  and  competent  men  are  averse 
to  the  service,  and  resort  often  to  subterfuges  to  avoid  the 


13 


duty  and  escape  its  hardships.  On  grand  juries  they  serve  will¬ 
ingly,  but  on  petit  juries  with  reluctance.” 

On  the  other  hand,  the  reasons  which  support  the  rule  of 
unanimity  are  not  without  great  force ;  and,  as  was  well  said  by 
a  student  of  the  subject  (who,  after  a  careful  study,  himself 
favored  the  rule)  :  “It  often,  happens  that  it  is  the  one  compe¬ 
tent,  thoughtful,  conscientious  juror  who,  by  his  dissent,  com¬ 
pels  a  full  and  fair  consideration  of  the  evidence,  and  thus 
becomes  a  safeguard  against  precipitancy  and  passion  in  the 
rendering  of  verdicts.  The  fact  alone  that  unanimity  must  be 
reached  before  a  verdict  can  be  rendered,  tends  strongly,  beyond 
doubt,  to  produce  fair  deliberation  and  due  discussion  in  reach¬ 
ing  the  verdict.  This  is  an  unmixed  and  unquestionable  good.” 
“And,”  says  he,  finally,  “I  am  quite  sure  that  the  requirement 
that  society’s  great  prerogative  of  criminal  punishment  shall 
not  be  exercised  till  twelve  men,  sitting  as  a  jury,  are  persuaded 
by  evidence  that  the  real  criminal  is  before  them,  is  not  too 
stringent  a  rule  in  behalf  of  the  accused.” 

The  next  curiosity,  and  really  an  anomaly  in  the  system,  is 
that  of  Statutory  Exemptions  from  jury  duty.  And  this  has 
crept  insiduously  into  the  system ;  has  become  more  and  more 
enlarged  and,  I  confess,  to  my  mind,  is  both  inconsistent  with 
the  reason  of  the  system  and  wrong  in  actual  operation.  The 
very  basis,  or  rationale,  of  the  system  is  to  have  questions  of 
fact  determined  by  men  drawn  at  large  and  indiscriminately 
from  the  community,  and  from  all  kinds  and  callings  of  men. 
These  statutory  exemptions  relieve  men  engaged  in  certain 
occupations  entirely  from  jury  service,  in  most  cases  arbitrarily 
and  without  reason.  It  was  public  necessity  only  which  was 
the  origin  for  exemptions  ;  as,  for  instance,  millers,  men  who 
in  old  times  ground  grain  for  the  public ;  ferrymen,  men  who 
carried  the  public  over  rivers ;  and  each  of  whom  it  was  impor¬ 
tant  to  the  public  that  they,  as  times  then  were,  should  be  con¬ 
stantly  at  their  posts.  Physicians  and  members  of  organized 
fire  departments  perhaps,  come  within  the  same  sphere  now. 


14 


As  it  is  now,  however,  these  exemptions  have  been  vastly- 
extended,  until  the  statute  providing  for  exemptions  covers  a 
whole  printed  page.  It  includes,  among  many  other  exemp¬ 
tions,  all  state  and  county  officers,  and  officials  of  the  United 
States,  cashiers  and  tellers  of  banks,  editors  and  printers  of 
newspapers;  many  railroad  employees;  by  recent  additions, 
dentists  and  embalmers  have  been  included  as  well  as  physicians 
and  surgeons ;  and  at  a  recent  session  of  the  Legislature,  a  bill 
seeking  to  exempt  all  members  of  the  militia  was  being  pressed. 

It  seems  to  me  that  there  are  entirely  too  many  of  these 
exemptions;  too  many  men  are  relieved  from  jury  service; 
and  the  result  is  the  loss  to  the  jury  system  of  many  men  in 
every  community  who  should  serve  on  juries  and  help  to  bring 
in  just  verdicts,  and  get  to  understand  better,  by  actual  experi¬ 
ence,  the  difficulties  of  the  situation,  and  be  less  prone  to  criti¬ 
cise  the  verdicts  of  others  of  their  fellow  citizens  who  have 
actually  heard  the  case,  and  upon  whom  the  burden  of  the 
service  has  fallen. 

I  am  strongly  for  urging  a  close  revision  of  the  list  of  exemp¬ 
tions,  and  confining  them  strictly  to  such  cases  as  really  are 
necessary,  or,  at  least,  expedient,  for  the  public  welfare;  so  that 
our  juries  may  in  fact,  as  well  as  in  theory,  be  drawn  generally 
from  the  body  of  the  county  at  large  and  so  as  to  include  all 
classes  and  callings  of  men.  « 

The  next  and  last  curious  feature  of  the  system  of  trial  by 
jury,  to  which  I  shall  advert,  is  that  of  the  Right  of  Peremptory 
Challenge.  While  this  right  seems  to  be  of  very  ancient  origin, 
and,  from  that  very  fact  of  long  and  universal  user  in  the 
administration  of  law  under  the  jury  system,  and  while  it  has 
been  held  by  our  courts  to  be  a  right  of  rejection  and  not  of 
selection,  and  has  even  been  curtailed  from  the  maximum  of 
thirty-five  under  the  common  law,  to  twenty  in  our  statute; 
yet  practically,  as  we  see  it  now  in  operation,  it  does  seem  sure 
that  the  number  should  be  still  further  cut  down.  It  no  doubt 
is  true  that  a  few  peremptory  challenges  should  be  allowed  in 
serious  cases  where,  frequently  while  no  definite  cause  for 


15 


challenge  can  be  assigned,  there  is  yet  some  instinctive  feeling 
on  the  part  of  the  accused  or  the  prosecution  that  the  juror  is 
not  indifferent ;  yet  beyond  that,  the  challenge  for  cause  would 
seem  to  be  sufficient  safeguard  for  securing  an  impartial  jury: 
the  cause  to  be  determined  upon  questioning  the  juror,  and 
proofs,  for  the  decision  of  the  trial  judge,  as  it  is  now,  subject 
to  review  upon  appeal. 

Speaking  generally  of  the  jury  system,  one  of  the  most  nota¬ 
ble  functions  which  has  been  claimed  for  it  is  its  manifestly 
direct  educating  influence.  And  upon  that  point,  an  observer 
of  English  and  American  institutions  has  indicated  the  greatly 
increased  influence  of  trial  by  jury  in  its  application  to  civil  as 
well  as  criminal  causes  :  “When  applied  only  to  criminal 
causes/’  he  says,  “the  people  see  it  in  operation  only  at  inter¬ 
vals,  and  in  particular  cases  ;  they  are  accustomed  to  dispense 
with  it  in  the  ordinary  affairs  of  life,  and  to  look  upon  it 
merely  as  one  means,  and  not  the  sole  means  of  obtaining  jus¬ 
tice.  But  when  it  embraces  civil  actions,  it  is  constantly  before 
their  eyes  and  affects  all  their  interests.” 

“The  jury,”  he  continues,  “and  especially  the  civil  jury, 
serves  to  imbue  the  minds  of  the  citizens  with  a  part  of  the 
qualities  and  character  of  a  judge.  It  spreads  among  all  the 
people  a  respect  for  the  decision  of  the  law  *  *  *  It 
t  clothes  every  citizen  with  a  kind  of  magisterial  office,  it  makes 
all  men  feel  that  they  have  duties  to  fulfil  towards  society, 
and  that  they  take  a  part  in  the  government;  it  forces  men  to 
occupy  themselves  with  something  else  than  their  own  affairs, 
and  thus  combats  that  selfishness  which  is,  as  it  were,  the  rust 
of  society.” 

“He  calls  it  a  school  into  which  admission  is  free  and  open 
always,  which  each  juror  enters  to  be  instructed  in  his  legal 
rights ;  where  he  engages  in  daily  communication  with  the  most 
accomplished  and  enlightened  men;  where  the  laws  are  taught 
to  him  in  a  practical  manner,  and  are  brought  to  the  measure  of 
his  comprehension  by  the  efforts  of  able  lawyers,  the  instruc- 


16 


tions  of  the  judge,  and  the  very  passions  of  the  parties  to  the 
cause.” 

Says  another  author :  “It  is  not  the  absolute  wisdom  of  the 
jury;  it  is  not  the  certainty  that  its  conclusions  will  be  conso¬ 
nant  with  the  most  carefully  considered  views  of  the  most 
highly  trained  minds,  that  gives  to  the  jury  its  superiority  as  a 
practical  instrument  for  the  settlement  of  civil  disputes,  or 
for  determining  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  those  charged  with 
crime,  but  it  is  because,  being  actually  representative  of  the 
community,  it  brings  necessarily  and  unconsciously  to  its  task 
the  knowledge  which  comes  of  likeness  of  life,  habits,  pursuits, 
and  sympathies  which  is  essential  to  the  best  practical  results, 
and  still  more  essential  to  the  peace,  content,  and  harmony  of 
the  society  most  directly  affected  by  its  judgments.” 

So,  finally  upon  this  subject,  it  has  been  beautifully  written 
by  an  admirer  of  the  jury  system:  “Embedded  thus  in  the 
historical  foundations  of  the  civil  government  and  jurispru¬ 
dence  of  the  English  people  ;  entrenched  behind  the  strongest 
and  most  permanent  defenses  which  the  people  of  this  country 
can  erect — the  organic  laws  and  constitutions  of  the  United 
States  and  of  the  several  States  of  the  Union — trial  by  jury 
presents  itself  as  one  of  the  foremost  features  of  the  system  of 
jurisprudence  under  which  the  English  race  has  been  trained  ; 
concurrently  with  which  it  has  gained  its  liberties ;  and  through  ^ 
which,  it  is  believed,  as  is  evident,  those  liberties  will  in  the 
future  be  preserved.” 

It  is  with  this  system  of  trial  by  jury  that  you  young  gentle¬ 
men  of  the  graduating  law  class  will  have  to  come  in  contact, 
as  I  have  said  before.  You  will  no  doubt  have  heard  of,  and 
will  yourselves  observe,  as  I  have  done,  many  apparent  imper¬ 
fections  in  the  system  in  its  actual  operation;  and  many  utter 
miscarriages  of  justice,  and  grossly  arbitrary  and  unjust  ver¬ 
dicts.  No  human  institution  has  as  yet  achieved  perfection, 
and  in  common  fairness  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  very 
large  percentage  of  correct  verdicts  escape  the  public  notice, 
whereas  it  is  the  small  percentage  of  wrong  verdicts,  usually  in 


17 


notorious  cases,  which  attract  attention  and  call  forth  adverse 
criticism  upon  the  jury  system  generally.  In  other  words,  the 
misses  and  not  the  hits  are  counted.  It  may  be,  however,  that 
this  institution  should  be  much  moulded  and  modified.  Those 
are  problems  that  all  of  us  are  striving  to  solve ;  and  it  may  be 
that  the  solution  of  them  is  not  for  us,  but  for  generations  yet 
unborn. 

It  is  with  the  system  of  trial  by  jury,  however,  as  it  is,  that 
I  have  had  to  deal — seeking  the  best  obtainable  results,  but  con¬ 
scious  of  many  failures ;  yet  always  striving  cheerfully  on. 

It  has,  too,  fallen  to  my  lot,  in  my  work  as  a  judge,  to  have 
tried  before  me  some  of  the  most  difficult  and  notorious  causes 
of  recent  years,  and  it  is  of  the  knowledge  gained  in  these 
experiences  that  I  want  to  speak  before  closing  my  address. 

I  want  to  say  first  that,  while  no  detractor  from  the  past  and 
its  great  men  at  the  Bar,  yet  my  experience  in  every  county 
in  the  State  has  made  me  an  apostle  of  the  present  and  a 
prophet  of  as  great  achievement  in  the  future  for  our  lawyers. 

You  will  hear  of  the  wonderful  speeches  of  the  lawyers  of 
former  generations  in  South  Carolina;  and  you  will  hear  of 
decadence  at  the  Bar ;  and  that  oratory  has  gone  out  of  fashion ; 
and  that  the  argument  of  the  lawyer  is  useless  ;  and  that  the 
jury  don’t  wish  to  hear  the  lawyers ;  and  all  that  sort  of  thing. 
In  my  judgment,  that  is  only  true  to  the  extent  that  the  style 
of  oratory  has  changed,  and  that  the  old  style  of  speech  of 
flowery  language,  classical  allusion  and  erudition,  falls  flat 
before  jury  and  audience  of  the  present  day;  but  real  enthusi¬ 
asm  in  an  argument  which  deals  with  facts  of  the  case,  and 
suggests  some  new  or  ingenious  view  of  the  case,  or  suggests 
some  deduction  not  apparent  to  the  ordinary  listener,  always 
tells;  and  a  “real  good  speech,”  as  we  call  it  now,  along  these 
lines,  often  lights  the  path  to  a  correct  finding  by  the  jury. 

Not  long  ago  I  heard  a  lawyer  make  a  plausible  argument 
along  the  line  that  what  is  reasonable  is  credible,  and  that  the 
testimony  for  his  client  was  reasonable  and  that  against  him 
was  unreasonable;  and  he  put  it  so  that  it  certainly  looked  that 


18 


way.  The  lawyer  on  the  other  side  arose,  and  the  substance 
of  his  argument  was  that  while  it  might  be  true,  as  argued, 
about  the  reasonableness  of  the  matter,  yet  we  all  know,  “that 
it  is  the  unexpected  which  happens.”  He  killed  the  reasonable 
argument.  The  phrase  was  proverbial ;  it  caught  the  minds  of 
the  jury,  and  that  lawyer  won  his  case.  I  am  sure  he  had  the 
right  of  it,  too,  but  the  jury  might  well  have  gone  wrong,  so 
plausible  was  the  reasonable  argument  from  the  able  young  law¬ 
yer  who  presented  it. 

I  have  read  many  of  the  great  speeches  of  the  masters  of 
oratory  at  the  bar  in  the  past.  Three  years  ago  I  heard  as  bril¬ 
liant  a  speech  as  any  of  them,  in  view  of  the  changed  condi¬ 
tions,  which  I  have  adverted  to,  from  a  lawyer  in  a  small  county 
in  our  State.  He  is  still  a  young  man  in  active  practice — many 
of  you,  no  doubt,  know  him  well. 

It  was  in  a  dingy,  sawdust-strewn  loft  used  as  a  courthouse 
in  one  of  our  new  counties  that  the  case  was  tried. 

At  a  country  dance,  a  lovely  young  girl  came  to  her  betrothed 
and  told  him  that  a  young  man  there  had  been  very  rude  to 
her ;  he  sought  the  offender,  demanded  an  apology ;  and  in  the 
quarrel  which  ensued,  was  mortally  shot.  He  was  laid  on  a 
bed  and  while  his  life  was  swiftly  ebbing  away  from  the  cruel 
wound,  the  sweetheart  kneeling  by,  helping  to  stay  the  tide, 
the  slayer,  who  at  ffrst  thought  that  in  the  confusion,  no  one 
was  certain  who  did  the  shooting,  and,  therefore,  determining 
to  feign  ignorance,  came  into  the  room  and  asked  who  shot  the 
dying  man :  the  tortured  girl,  rising  and  pointing  her  finger  at 
him  over  the  quivering,  bleeding  body,  said,  “You  killed  him.” 

Afterwards  he  was  forced  to  admit  the  killing,  and  set  up 
self-defense.  It  was  a  case  of  reversal  of  the  usual  case  of  the 
so-called  unwritten  law.  An  array  of  able  counsel  represented 
him,  all  of  whom  acquitted  themselves  with  great  credit  and 
made  fine  speeches.  The  lawyer  to  whom  I  am  especially 
referring  now,  however,  was  retained  for  the  prosecution.  He 
commenced  to  address  the  jury  about  dark.  The  weather  was 
hot,  and  the  place  crowded  to  suffocation,  and  yet  every  one, 


19 


man  and  woman  there  present,  sat  or  stood  huddled,  spell¬ 
bound  for  nearly  three  hours  while  this  masterly  speaker  trod 
the  crumpled  sawdust-strewn  floor  before  that  jury,  over¬ 
whelming  them  with  such  flow  of  argument  and  pathos  as  I  do 
not  believe  was  ever  surpassed  anywhere  at  any  time. 

The  prisoner  sat  shrinking  and  crushed  under  it.  That 
scene  at  the  deathbed  was  woven  in  and  out,  iterated  and  reit¬ 
erated.  At  the  climax  of  every  telling  point  the  orator  would 
advance  near  the  prisoner  and,  pointing  to  his  cowering  form, 
say  to  the  jury,  each  time  in  some  varying  form,  and  some 
times  almost  in  a  whisper  and  again  in  almost  stentorian 
tones :  “And,  gentlemen,  whatever  you  may  do  with  him,  even 
if  you  acquit  him  and  let  him  go,  his  punishment  will  have  been 
achieved;  his  life  will  never  again  be  a  tranquil  one — there 
will  be  coming  to  him  everywhere  and  in  the  stillest  watches 
of  the  dismal  night,  the  vision  of  that  beautiful  young  girl 
standing  over  the  body  of  her  dying  lover ;  pointing  her  aveng¬ 
ing  finger  at  him  and  saying  in  vibrant  tones :  ‘You  killed  him’ 
— ‘You  killed  him!’  You  killed  him!’  ” 

I  could  see  that  the  jury  was  absolutely  carried  away.  I 
myself  was  as  though  under  a  magic  spell.  I  did  not  notice  the 
lapse  of  time,  until,  finally,  amidst  a  pause  of  breathless  inten¬ 
sity,  I  realized  that  the  spell  must  be  broken,  and,  though 
reluctantly,  I  had  the  speaker  cease  and  recess  taken  before 
I  would  send  the  jury  out  with  the  case;  feeling  sure  that  they 
would  otherwise  act  regardless  of  the  evidence  under  the 
impulse  of  the  orator. 

I  have  heard  in  our  courthouse  many  other  brilliant  speeches 
which  would  stand  with  any  of  the  past.  One  from  a  great  law¬ 
yer  of  our  State,  now  living  (a  master  mind  and  gifted  with 
the  art  of  oratory  and  diction) — a  powerful  analysis  of  law  and 
testimony,  lighted  with  brilliant  bursts  of  eloquence,  delivered 
almost  entirely  sitting,  as  the  speaker  was  suffering  desperately 
and  could  stand  with  difficulty.  Another  from  the  same  lawyer 
in  an  equity  case — a  masterpiece  of  argument  and  eloquence 
combined.  Another,  from  a  young  lawyer  in  a  civil  case,  at 


20 


half-past  nine  in  the  morning,  a  gruesome  hour  for  a  speech, 
yet,  without  raising  his  voice  beyond  the  conversational  pitch, 
in  a  few  minutes  he  had  many  of  the  jurors  in  tears.  The 
result  was  a  large  verdict,  well  deserved  and  fafrly  earned,  for 
a  widow  and  two  beautiful  children. 

Lack  of  time  prevents  me  from  citing  other  instances  or  going 
more  into  detail;  and  it  seems  unfortunate  that  we  have  no 
provision  for  having  a  report  of  such  speeches  and  the  settings 
of  the  case. 

I  feel,  however,  that  I  have  scored  my  point  along  this  line. 
It  is,  do  not  underrate  the  power  of  a  good  speech ;  and  as  we 
have  as  strong  men  now  at  the  bar  as  we  ever  had,  we  will  have 
them  in  your  generation  too,  and  so :  strive  to  be  among  them. 

My  next  suggestion  is :  Be  alert.  Use  all  the  material  which 
is  available.  I  heard  a  most  effective  argument  in  a  case 
recently  tried  before  me,  based  upon  an  apparently  trifling 
episode  which  occurred  at  the  very  beginning  of  a  protracted 
trial ;  generally  a  mere  matter  of  form ;  and  I  am  quite  sure  no 
one  else  but  the  alert  lawyer  for  the  defendant  had  noticed  the 
incident,  but  when  developed  as  it  was,  it  undoubtedly  helped 
to  carry  the  jury. 

Do  not  ever  attempt  to  get  in  clearly  incompetent  testimony. 
Some  lawyers  seem  to  think  it  smart  to  ask  improper  questions, 
relying  upon  the  objection  being  sustained  and  the  jury  drawing 
an  inference  that  there  is  foundation  for  the  question  and  that 
the  answer  would  hurt  the  objector.  Remember,  however, 
that  the  judge  may  err  and  admit  the  answer,  and  you  will  lose 
your  verdict  on  appeal;  or  the  judge  may  rebuke  you  and  set 
you  down  before  the  jury.  Even  as  great  and  experienced  a 
lawyer  as  Mr.  Choate  lost  a  verdict  of  forty  thousand  dollars 
in  the  famous  case  against  Russell  Sage,  brought  by  the  man 
he  used  as  a  shield  from  a  bomb  explosion,  by  pressing  in 
incompetent  testimony.  The  report  of  that  case  impresses  one 
with  the  clear  inadmissibility  of  the  testimony,  and  yet  the 
judge  ruled  for  Mr.  Choate.  The  testimony  went  in;  the  appel- 


21 


late  court  reversed  the  verdict  on  that  ground,  and  the  plain¬ 
tiff  could  never  get  another  verdict,  and  finally  lost  the  case. 

Next  I  say  to  you  be  not  too  prone  to  go  out  and  abuse  the 
court  because  you  have  lost.  If  lawyers  do  that  indiscrimi¬ 
nately,  what  are  you  to  expect  from  the  people  generally? 
Jocularly  it  is  said:  From  an  adverse  decision  on  circuit  a  law¬ 
yer  has  two  remedies:  to  abuse  the  judge  or  appeal;  he  cannot 
be  heard  to  do  both.  I  suggest  the  rule  should  be,  drop  the 
abuse  always  and  appeal.  As  to  the  Supreme  Court,  you  can't 
appeal,  but  nevertheless  do  not  abuse.  You  will  get  some  case 
in  which  the  objectionable  decision  will  be  authority  for  your 
point,  and  you  will  then  be  satisfied  the  decision  was  correct. 

There  are  those,  I  know,  who  advocate  “the  study  of  one 
book”  (as  the  phrase  is),  and  the  reading  only  of  the  classics  in 
literature,  but  in  my  humble  judgment,  the  lawyer  of  today 
needs  more  than  that;  he  should  be  cultivated  in  all  the  arts 
and  graces.  His  knowledge  of  law  must  be  both  accurate  and 
diversified  (unless  he  desires  to  become  a  specialist).  If  a 
choice  is  to  be  made,  let  it  be  for  diversity.  Special  knowledge 
can  be  acquired  for  the  emergency  of  a  particular  case  arising 
in  general  practice.  Neglect  not  the  belles  lettres  and  the  arts 
and  graces  of  polite  society.  A  lawyer  must  not  be  narrow. 
Metaphorically  speaking,  he  should  be  as  well  at  home,  “caper¬ 
ing  nimbly  in  a  lady’s  chamber  to  the  lascivious  pleasing  of  a 
lute,”  as  to  be  prepared  to  “mount  barbed  steeds  to  chase  the 
souls  of  fearful  adversaries.” 

No  lawyer  who  expects  to  take  a  stand  at  the  head  of  and 
in  advance  of  his  people,  as  a  lawyer  should  do,  should  come 
into  court  slovenly  and  unkempt.  A  real  genius  may  neglect 
the  “outward  and  visible  form,”  but  the  average  man  should 
keep  up  his  personal  appearance.  Do  your  work  in  the  green¬ 
room  before  you  make  your  entrance  upon  the  stage. 

Undoubtedly  the  law  school  affords  the  best  opportunity  for 
training  to  enter  the  bar.  The  old  style  of  studying  in  an  office 
under  some  prominent  lawyer  has  gone  out  of  vogue.  The  busy 
lawyer  of  today  has  no  time  to  devote  to  personal  supervision 


22 


over  the  studies  of  his  pupil,  and  no  special  training  along  those 
lines.  In  the  law  school  you  have  the  trained  teacher,  and  the 
spirit  of  emulation  and  discussion  among  the  students. 

Next,  I  urge  you  to  be  liberal  with  your  services.  You  will 
be  assigned,  without  compensation,  to  defend  indigent  and  even 
unpopular  persons.  Don’t  dodge  such  assignments.  You  embar¬ 
rass  the  judge,  and  perhaps  lose  an  opportunity  for  making 
reputation.  Some  of  the  greatest  trials  in  the  history  of  the 
world  have  been  defended  by  counsel  voluntarily  or  by  assign¬ 
ment.  It  is  said  to  be  the  proud  boast  of  the  English  bar,  in 
contrast  with  that  of  other  countries,  that  the  services  of  her 
greatest  lawyers  are  at  the  disposal  of  the  humblest  citizen 
accused  of  crime  in  her  courts,  upon  the  mere  request  of  the 
presiding  judge. 

In  the  light  of  the  great  examples  of  service  which  has  been 
rendered  by  members  of  the  English  and  American  bars  in  such 
cases,  I  should  feel  mortified  to  have  any  of  our  young  lawyers 
refuse  or  dodge  such  an  assignment.  And  then  I  say  use  your 
mind  in  applying  general  principles  to  problems  presented  to 
you,  and  don’t  be  too  keen  to  consume  your  energy  in  groping 
for  precedents. 

Except  upon  some  questions  which  must  depend  upon  settled 
though  technical  rules,  whether  apparently  based  upon  reason 
or  not,  nothing  is  law,  and  no  conclusion  warranted  which  can¬ 
not  be  made  to  appear  right  and  reasonable  to  a  fair-minded 
and  reasonably  intelligent  person.  I  would  hate  to  have  to 
decide  a  case  which  would  not  square  with  that  equation.  As 
far  back  as  the  time  of  Lord  Coke,  we  have  it  from  him  that 
“nothing  that  is  contrary  to  reason  is  consonant  to  law.”  Of 
course  there  will  be,  and  are,  differences  of  personal  opinion  as 
to  the  wisdom  and  expediency  of  the  conclusion,  or  as  to 
whether  the  correct  principles  have  been  applied. 

Remember  that  a  departure  from  the  ancient  mare-marks  of 
the  common  law  is  always  dangerous  and  to  be  deplored ;  but  on 
the  other  hand,  it  is  well  said,  “the  law  would  be  a  strange 
science  if  it  rested  solely  upon  cases;  and  if  after  so  large  an 


23 


increase  of  commerce,  arts,  and  circumstances  accruing,  we 
must  go  to  the  time  of  Richard  I  to  find  a  case  and  see  what  is 
law.” 

And,  as  Mr.  Wigmore  has  pointedly  put  it :  “There  cannot  be 
a  precise  precedent  for  everything.  Where  there  is  a  clearly 
established  principle,  the  lack  of  a  precedent  is  no  obstacle. 
There  must  some  time  be  a  first  precedent.  Were  the  judges 
of  Charles  II  or  George  III,  who  themselves  were  but  the  fol¬ 
lowers  of  six  centuries  of  royal  judges,  the  last  generation 
vested  with  the  authority  to  apply  old  principles  in  new  forms  ?” 

And  so  my  thought  tonight  along  these  lines  is :  Seek  for 
precedents  and  adhere  to  principles,  but  use  your  own  brains 
too.  It  may  sometimes  be  demonstrated  that  the  wisdom  of 
the  past  is  the  folly  of  the  present. 

Among  and  towards  your  fellows  at  the  bar,  be  always  cour¬ 
teous  and  fair.  “A  lawyer  should  use  the  weapons  of  a  war¬ 
rior,  not  those  of  an  assassin.” 

Be  firm  and  aggressive,  but  courteous.  “A  study  of  Ches¬ 
terfield  is  as  important  as  of  Blackstone.” 

And  so,  for  your  conduct  among  your  fellows  in  the  court¬ 
room,  take  to  thought  and  memory  this  trite  though  homely 
jingle : 

“No  quarrels  have  we  of  our  own, 

We  manage  others’  broils, 

And  though  we  fight  with  all  our  might, 

We’ve  buttons  on  our  foils.” 

My  plea  here  tonight,  in  concluding  my  address,  is  especially 
for  law ;  and  integrity  and  diligence  at  the  bar,  in  the  practice  of 
law.  Classed  as  it  is  among  the  three  learned  professions  (the 
Clergy,  Medicine,  Law),  the  practice  of  law  in  our  courts  is 
but  the  only  one  which  can  be  said  to  be  in  anywise  assail¬ 
able.  That  most  of  the  slurs  cast  upon  it  are  without  founda¬ 
tion  and  in  the  face  of  the  facts  of  history,  except  to  the 
extent  that  all  human  undertakings  are  fallible,  there  can  be 
no  doubt. 


24 


That  for  life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness  among 
mankind  there  must  be  law  and  organized  courts  for  the  admin¬ 
istration  of  law,  no  one  can  deny.  And  the  facts  do  show  that 
it  is  the  people  of  the  world  whose  thought  has  been  most 
directed  to  law ;  who  have  evolved  the  most  perfect  systems  of 
law,  and  been  most  rigid  and  exact  in  the  enforcement  of  law, 
wbo  are  the  people  who  have  left  the  deepest  impress  upon 
humanity  and  upon  human  institutions. 

So  it  is  always  for  each  generation  of  those  who  come  to 
minister  in  the  temple  of  the  law;  the  duly  organized  courts; 
the  lawyers ;  to  see  to  it  that  the  movement  for  law  be  always 
forward,  towards  better  law,  and  more  certain  and  swift 
enforcement  of  law;  that  the  people  may  be  encouraged  to 
maintain  their  respect  for  law  in  and  through  its  proper  source, 
the  courts.  That  the  name  of  the  court  be  not  tarnished,  and 
its  authority  broken  down. 

The  young  law  graduates  who  will  go  forth  from  here  tonight 
are,  for  a  generation,  to  minister  in  these  temples  of  the  law  in 
South  Carolina.  As  the  older  lawyers  whom  they  will  find 
upon  the  Bench  and  at  the  Bar  fade  away  and  pass  on  to  the 
bar  of  final  and  eternal,  absolute,  exact  and  equal  justice,  they 
will  have  to  take  up  their  burdens,  meet  their  temptations,  and 
stand  before  the  people  as  the  exponents  and  ministers  of  law ; 
of  “Sovereign  law,  that  State’s  collected  will,”  which  “O’er 
thrones  and  globes  elate,  sits  Empress,  crowning  good,  repress¬ 
ing  ill.” 

On  behalf  of  the  judiciary  of  South  Carolina;  on  behalf  of 
the  Faculty  of  the  University;  on  behalf  of  the  men,  women 
and  children  of  South  Carolina,  who  must  all  live  under  the 
aegis  of  the  law,  we  wish  them  all  full  measure  of  success. 


